FTC Spotlights The Reputation Hole Machinima Dug For Itself With Undisclosed Paid Xbox Pimp-Posts
from the here's-a-shovel dept
Way back in early 2014, we wrote about the revelation that Microsoft and Machinima, the popular YouTube network, had worked out some kind of arrangement in which the newly-released Xbox One would get positive coverage from Machinima personalities. Likewise, Machinima's agreements with its own personalities leaked, laying out just exactly how those personalities would be compensated for pimping the Xbox One without ever informing fans that they were doing so. This, at a very minimum, was an existential gamble wagering the trust Machinima had built for itself amongst fans for the chance at some dollars from Microsoft. It was a bad wager. Once this all became public, I'm struggling to understand why anyone would put an ounce of trust in the Machinima outlet at all.
And now the FTC is involved, taking the time to ding Machinima for the behavior and enjoining it to never do anything similar in the future.
In a press release today, the FTC announced that the two parties have come to a settlement that will prevent Machinima from pulling this sort of shadiness again. Writes the FTC: “Under the proposed settlement, Machinima is prohibited from similar deceptive conduct in the future, and the company is required to ensure its influencers clearly disclose when they have been compensated in exchange for their endorsements.”The FTC also cited specific examples of Machinima's actions, including naming personalities that were involved, helpfully torpedoing those personalities' ability to get fans to trust them in the future.
Respondent paid influencer Adam Dahlberg $15,000 for the two video reviews that he uploaded to his YouTube channel “SkyVSGaming.” In his videos, Dahlberg speaks favorably of Microsoft, Xbox One, and Ryse. Dahlberg’s videos appear to be independently produced and give the impression that they reflect his personal views. Nowhere in the videos or in the videos’ descriptions did Dahlberg disclose that Respondent paid him to create and upload them. Dahlberg’s first video received more than 360,000 views, and his second video more than 250,000 views.The FTC then goes on to expose the entire deal Machinima had with Microsoft's advertising group, Starcom, which included an initial roll out of paid positive coverage by a few personalities, but was then to evolve into a Machinima-wide program of paid-for positive coverage of the Xbox One, with payments to be based on traffic/views.
Respondent paid influencer Tom Cassell $30,000 for the two video reviews that he uploaded to his YouTube channel “TheSyndicateProject.” In his videos, Cassell speaks favorably of Microsoft, Xbox One, and Ryse. Cassell’s videos appear to be independently produced and give the impression that they reflect his personal views. Nowhere in the videos or in the videos’ descriptions did Cassell disclose that Respondent paid him to create and upload them. Cassell’s first video received more than 730,000 views, and his second video more than 300,000 views.
This, it should go without saying, was insane. In the arena of YouTube personalities in general, and perhaps more specifically with the gaming fanbase and the culture that surrounds it, you simply cannot gamble with your reputation and expect the reward to be worth it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: disclosure, ftc, paid placement, payola, videos, xbox
Companies: machinima, microsoft, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gaming houses have killed all integrity involving reviews.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"with the gaming fanbase and the culture that surrounds it, you simply cannot gamble with your reputation and expect the reward to be worth it."
Mainly, however, you imply that "gamers" are above-board and honest to a fault, aren't cynical enough to stand for this highly excusable deception -- $15K will keep even a gamer in beer and cheetos for a year, right? I'd guess so even after buying the very latest sixteen-core with 64G and eight-video card rig, too.
I think -- and this is a compliment if'n ya look at right, kinda squint -- that you're projecting onto "gamers" in general a core of old-fashioned honesty that most do not possess.
So, YAY, innovative shills! You monetized opinions otherwise just given away!
Now, as usual, it'd be nice if Techdirt (including Copia "think tank") itself followed what it disparages in others. So I'd like to see financial disclosures here, especially how many dollars Google pays the site(s) for advertising or mysteriously "sponsors" and for what in return? If it's zero, why not just state it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reviewers paid for positive reviews? Really? I never knew!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reviewers paid for positive reviews? Really? I never knew!
Anywho, to actually give the comment for my previous post, it's obvious that reviewers are paid to give positive reviews when the scale for a game goes from 8 to 10. How do you know a game sucks so bad you'll gouge out your eyes to avoid seeing it? They give it a 7.5.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reviewers paid for positive reviews? Really? I never knew!
It happens ALOT with AAA titles where the companies that spend these vast budgets on the game rush them out the door and pay the "pros" for good reviews even when the game is clearly a turd. Looking at you Ubisoft and EA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Microsoft?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Microsoft?
It's the duty of reviewers to provide the push-back when the marketers ask them to cross ethical lines, and to have the integrity to refuse such offers.
And it's the customer that ultimately will provide the push-back to both should either be anti-consumer in their practices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Microsoft?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Searching for the right words
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reviewers paid for positive reviews? Really? I never knew!
Not doing that tends to make people angry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Microsoft?
If MS couldn't find partners who were equally lacking in ethics and willing to lie for money, Microsoft would soon be a dead company.
If that happened, we wouldn't miss them a bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://twitter.com/Gametegrity/status/639231162494382081
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://reconxbl.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/ReconXBL/status/424572453226942465
https://twitt er.com/ReconXBL/status/639433815795073024
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Reviewers paid for positive reviews? Really? I never knew!
US law maybe, but Tom Cassell seems to be British; the FTC lack jurisdiction. Under UK/EU regulations it's a bit more nuanced, but my understanding is that since these sock-puppets were paid, what they were doing constitutes advertising (aka "advertorials"), and adverts must be clearly marked as such. That said, I'm not aware of the UK's Office of Fair Trading ever bringing action against anyone for this type of malpractice, they generally act on complaints.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder if there was a lot more money deals earlier in it's life that just didn't reach the Microsoft amounts of cash to cause it to bubble up into the feds caring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Microsoft?
Which excuses nothing. The idea that marketers are "expected" to lie and cheat is one of the primary reasons why marketers are so hated.
"it's the customer that ultimately will provide the push-back to both should either be anti-consumer in their practices"
This is charmingly naive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "with the gaming fanbase and the culture that surrounds it, you simply cannot gamble with your reputation and expect the reward to be worth it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]